Stay architecturally enlightened!

How the economy upended young architects' hopes

The evidence sits in my refrigerator: chevroned tall boys of Saison ale and a meticulous shortbread fruit tart, both crafted by former co-workers and classmates who initially pursued architecture only to search for fulfillment elsewhere. Photographers, typographers, bakers, bikers, and brewers are all disguised on LinkedIn and Facebook as design interns. There’s a renaissance happening among young architects — and it’s not in architecture.
— crosscut.com

87 Comments

more than that the scenario is ridiculous. i assume you are practising so must know better, Thayer.

there can be disconnect between architect and client. we turn down clients we are not going to see eye to eye with fairly regularly. its pretty standard business decision. no judgment beyond the important one that we are aiming for different things.

as for vitruvius, explanation was not actually necessary. it's just nonsense as far as i can tell, a fog of rationality that is more or less just the same acre of bullshit theory you are railing against. not sure how you can't see that its just one more theory among many and probably worse than anything eisenman ever came up with. crazy reductive and useless wavy-gravy post-rationalizing machine at the same time. great for fascists i suppose.

the disconnect between practice and school is kind of a funny thing. my students tend to go off and work for sejima or kuma or other starchitect since they are the professors teaching here. we require students to build as part of the education, usually in africa or in reconstruction projects in northern japan (it is part of our curriculum), but then they head off to sejima and are doing white models and really doing all the conceptual stuff most american architects have a hard time including in their practice (apparently).

i guess it depends on the education you get and how flexible you are as a person. my own education in canada was more than enough to jump into project management and design in London and in Japan, and after i went to study with people like tadao ando in Tokyo my views were only confirmed. ando is a man who knows more than most what it means to build, but when he talked to us it was about meaning, not construction. If an architect struggles with meaning and can't see a way forward with ideas I guess it would be a frustrating world regardless of the education and the economy.

I mostly found this article to be whiny. I understand it's hard, especially in this economy, but it's been hard to be a 20-something recent graduate for at least the last 75 years.

"…but during our five years as students we were taught that architecture was more than this — we were responsible for creating spaces that provided for people’s physical and emotional well being. We were builders, artists, and humanitarians, entrusted with listening to, observing, and assimilating the culture around us into engaging, thriving, magical places…Those (thesis) projects may not have been designed with real-world constraints, but they symbolized an emotional connection to something — music, travel, cultural heritage, sustainability, humanitarianism — that we felt should be inherent in any project but was missing from the ones we now found ourselves working on…"

You can find all the artistry, culture, and importance that you want in deciding whether a grout joint should be 1/8" or 1/4" if you are so inclined. Or you can find it menial and meaningless and chuck it all for some other creative pursuit. I have many friends from architecture school who chucked it all and are very happy in their careers and pursuits; for most of them the angst of the decision dissipated within a few years of no longer being in their mid-twenties. Just sayin'.

Galloway, If you think Vitruvius is nonsense, why did you say you didn't understand it? And to compare Firmness, Commodity, and Delight to the bs people like eisenman peddle is laughable. Then again, if you think concrete box as high art Tado Ando knows architecture says enough. But I'm a fascist becasue we don't agree...that's mighty openminded of you.

Donna, it's incredibly insensitive to compare graduating in this economic climate to graduating 20 years ago when there where 2-3 columns of jobs in the paper, and now there are 2-3. What's incredibly ironic is the wall of defensiveness at anyone who dares to question the institution of architectural education, when that's where one's supposed to be allowed to explore ideas, except if they are the ones that built Paris, Rome, and New York.

Um, Thayer/perennial, I graduated in 1990, when there were no jobs to be had in Indianapolis, Phoenix, OR Los Angeles, the three places all my studio mates were looking. My friends who moved to NYC got jobs in clothing stores.

And the entire point of my post was that the first few years out of school are hard no matter what. FFS, you're going from creative nirvana to mind-numbingly constrained in even the best possible scenario, and simultaneously realizing that those lazy (by comparison), lovely, community-filled days of university are over forever. It's hard. This economy makes it harder, but every graduate - in every field - faces the jarring transition into reality those first few years out of school. A whole lot of them decide their chosen field isn't fulfilling (either emotionally or financially) and move into other areas: this is not isolated to us architects.

But the author of this article even *had* a job, from which she resigned, because it wasn't fulfilling enough. And rather than write an article about how exciting it is and how lucky she is to have both options and the courage to embark on her own non-traditional path, she whines about not finding a way to instill her values into the work she *was* doing, which I would argue is the entire purpose of getting a university degree in the first place: you learn to think about the world and react in ways that will benefit it, even if all you're doing is picking up redlines.

hartacus, you're either one of two things; full of shit, or not an architect, but i'm going to bet on both. means and methods my boy, means and methods. i don't tell contractors shit about how to build anything, i don't tell them how to nail, where to nail, how to mix mortar, or how to weld. there are professional organizations, astm guidelines, and industry standards. smacna, bia, etc. as for the owner, and you somehow washing your hands. it's pretty obvious by this comment you don't do public work, while that mentality may, may fly in the chicken coop building industry, just try that in education construction, or anything that is done with more astute and attentive clients; the buck always, always lands on my door step, regardless of how clean your hands are after washing. publicly bid jobs, with an owners rep, never gets you the GC you want, it gets you the GC you get.

i've dealt with many kinds of people, but anyone that stands in front of me and tells me they know everything, needs to have their brain examined.

One of the commenters over on the crosscut site said this, which I think is very interesting and IMO sad:

…we worked long hours in the old days, too. But there was a craft to producing drawings and models that gave lower-level staff pleasure, and eventually this translated more and more to a sense of producing something even more exciting: a building. But the interface with the computer has destroyed this sense of craft, and we have not developed new transitional strategies that allow interns in their first years to feel their work has a creative outlet.

I do believe that long hours at a monitor are less satisfying than long hours at a drafting table, not that young interns likely have much experience with the latter anyway. But at least I had the physical pleasure of a well-drawn line when I was starting out.

"In the early 1990s, in the wake of the Gulf War and the accompanying spike in energy prices, the economy soured and design firms evicted swaths of junior employees. It was a bad time: between the high tide of employment in July 1990 and the low point in January 1993 the number of architecture jobs dropped 14.6%, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In New York, architecture positions fell 23% between 1990 and 1992".

I remember 10 years ago listening to older associates in the office telling me how they graduated in in the early 90's into an industry that had absolutely no jobs available, anywhere in the states. Many of their classmates changed careers immediately upon receiving their architecture degrees. Back then the internet wasn't even accessible to the general mass. Graduates today have way more opportunities. Think about it. Now days, you can see underemployed whiny arch graduates spitting out generic laser cut jewelry, spamming all their friends and family to buy it on their Etsy store. You couldn't do that 20 years ago.

I agree 100% with Donna that the author comes off as whiny. I think I would be whiny too if I was designing Nordstrom remodel interiors all day. However, writing a two page op-ed piece to articulate your frustrations, comes off as selfish, indulgent, and entitled.

FYI, Thayer-D, you can catch up about the lost generation via this Architect article:

A) the qoute at the top of this post clearly points to something I think most architects who stick it out and surf archinect have in common - arts and crafts. Saison Ale, a fruitcake, and somewhat knowing your means and methods makes you feel like an earnest designer and builder = architect?

B) someone said EMO, and I see this article is from some NorthWest state...ok you are a person who exists in luxury of existence: enough to complain about not being accepted based on your expressions. whoop-dee do you have school loans - at least you got to go to school and sit in air conditioning thinking about high faluten principles... I sponsor a child for $30 a month to give them food etc.. i seriously doubt self-expression is an issue when you can't eat...wow - getting people to accept you for who you are? do you really know who you are are when everything comes so easily?

C) Vitruvius - he's good, pretty basic and right

D) there was this article I read when I graduate in 2002 about how my generation expected everything to happen in 5 years like a Mark Zuckerberg or Google founder. This is architecture, real architecture often takes 5 years. Our parents thought it was a 20 year plan, I'm sticking with it. Just because you had an idea - who cares - someone in China already knocked it off, because they use Google better than you do - your IDEA already existed.

E) we hate ourselves because we are not good enough. We'd all like to be Cameron Sinclair and Philip Johnson with a little Rem Koolhass and Bjarke Ingles...not to mention a little Norman Foster...but who can do that besides FLW!!!! the rest of us will just have to accept we are not good enough to be what we thought we could be - stararchitects - the best.

hope I contributed

and NCARB isn't so bad, it's run by people, you call them up just like your state board (if you can get through) do some fancy talking in a friendly voice and its all cool.

I'll try to expand on the previous posters common sense. We are trying to help a young woman and others get into this profession we all clearly love, what ever partisan crap we subscribe to. I also graduated in 1990 when the front page of the Wall Street Joural said that "the worst thing to be in today's economy is a young architect". After cleaning my underware, I ran to the nearest graduate school. That still dosen't negate the young womans main point that her schooling was sub-par for what she found in the profession. I knew this while in school, becasue you could see for yourself how people liked to live, even my professors who would laugh at you when you did something that looked remotely traditional. Guess where they all lived, beautiful parts of Manhattan with traditional architecture, yet we wheren't allowed to study that, only jerk-offs like Rem Koolhouse, Eisenman, Lecorbusier and all the usual suspects.

It's never too late to throw away the political crap they stuff in your head at schools though. People will hire you if your a good problem solver and can work with others. That means developing thier ideas like apprentice architects have dome for millenia, what ever thier style or philosophy. If you don't like the production line of corporate or starchitect offices where your job is to do the ada toilets or rated firestairs, then join a small firm, but keep the abstract art as architecture to a minimum in your portfolio. It reeks of navel gazing, and will reduce your chances of getting a job. Also, learn how to draw by hand. People instinctivley know that you can hide a lot of ineptitude behind flashy graphics, but good hand drawings show a skill in describing space intelligently. Also, being a problem solver will be your greatest asset. It's like nurses or teachers who get immense satisfaction helping others, you might be surprised how good you'll feel when Mrs. Smith says she loooves her new family room that you designed.

you could see for yourself how people liked to live, even my professors who would laugh at you when you did something that looked remotely traditional.

As usual another sermon about the faux-old business model from Thayer-D, and now slyly aligned with the "practical constraints" of professional practice, super-false. Sorry you born in the wrong century ThayerD, but that is no way to practice architecture, at least when it comes to understanding today's culture. That's the thing about faux-old though, it's too lazy to even try, so it romanticizes instead.

Guess where they all lived, beautiful parts of Manhattan with traditional architecture, yet we wheren't allowed to study that, only jerk-offs like Rem Koolhouse, Eisenman, Lecorbusier and all the usual suspects.

Not true, they all know their history, and what is a "Koolhouse"? More shameful evidence of how out of touch you are with academia and modern life. Internet archeologists will one day confirm this. The "most beautiful parts of Manhattan" are also bygone fairy tale times, those building have left their mark, stop trying to copy them. The rest of your argument also gives little merit to the traditionalist's model, as the homes of architects and starchitects is pretty reflective of today's mundane built environment, which doesn't have much architecture by the way.

It's never too late to throw away the political crap they stuff in your head at schools though. People will hire you if your a good problem solver and can work with others. That means developing thier ideas like apprentice architects have dome for millenia, what ever thier style or philosophy.

Since the release of your "pereniahole" blog, it's been pretty obvious you're not much of an authority on academic content. And as Vile Child has noted, academia is oftentimes ahead of what presently being circulated in the "real world." Your living on a cloud, the separation is essential to R&D.

If you don't like the production line of corporate or starchitect offices where your job is to do the ada toilets or rated firestairs, then join a small firm, but keep the abstract art as architecture to a minimum in your portfolio. It reeks of navel gazing, and will reduce your chances of getting a job.

Do you have any idea what NY's small firms are doing these days? Or even the corporate ones? It's pretty amazing compared faux-oldies.

Also, learn how to draw by hand. People instinctivley know that you can hide a lot of ineptitude behind flashy graphics, but good hand drawings show a skill in describing space intelligently.

Today's students are so ridiculously talented, I mean all-around drawing and computers, it is like seeing evolution before your eyes.

Also, being a problem solver will be your greatest asset. It's like nurses or teachers who get immense satisfaction helping others, you might be surprised how good you'll feel when Mrs. Smith says she loooves her new family room that you designed.

And she will get it faster, better, and cheaper with some parametric software. Sorry but calling it "flashy graphics" makes you sound dopey.

Just the fact that you think I'm the same person as Perrenialwhole tells me not only how paranoid your mind is, but what weak foundations your thought rests on. As for your constant stream of insults, that speaks for it self. My apologies for my spelling though.

You're right, she was dissapointed in the profession and how little her schooling aligned with what the profession was about. But do you really think it's the professions fault? Do you think deadlines and a clients personal and economic concerns are something new to architecture? Like I've said before, it helps to dig a bit deeper than the pretty pictures that most archtiectural history is taught through. Im trying to help this dissolusioned architect see that despite some really horrible offices, the conditions under which architecture is made hasn't changed all that much, at least in our country. Why do you think the Chicago School wasn't named the New York School? Becasue the business men in Chicago didn't have the "culture" or money to spend on elaborate neo-renaisance buildings. So the architects responded by producing a more stripped down aesthetic that inspired many younger architects to evolve what's now known as the Chicago School. Of course this is a massive simplification to make a point, but necessity is the mother of invention.

Sometimes, instead of complaining you didn't get your favorite toy for Christmas, you make do with the sticks and stones you find, and in the end, that process of invention will create something you could never have imagined. So what I'm saying is, archtiecture schools do students like her a disservice to pretend that a client or site or whatever won't give you constraints that might seen constricting, but if you plow through, you might create something truly beautiful. Take the monadnok building by John Wellborn Root in Chicago. If you looked at the original designs, they where full of decoration. But the client didn't want to spend the money, so Root and his draftsmen created a beautiful and spare building, signalling the minimalism and abstraction that influenced early modernists. Sometimes, flipping the equation will generate new opportunities. Don't get caught up in the nastyness of the "real' world, look beyond, because, like the weather, this world has always been brutish and unfair. You wouldn't want to end up as an internet troll with some angry moniker like "Vile Child" crapping over anyone who dosen't agree with you. You may be right about my underware, but how would you know?

Ever heard of a construction detail, nailing schedule, or construction notes? Fucking palsy. Methods is how they build it to the specs in which you want it built. It is helpful and considerate to visualize the method when designing, especially details.

When you have this reality in your design and the details you create are actually build-able, contractors don't roll their eyes and laugh at the profession. They respect you and appreciate the plans. I'll never forget when I first started in architecture what someone said to me. "A good set of plans leaves no questions to be asked." Let see the crying babies and b3tadine[sutures] create construction documents where the contractor doesn't have a single question.

Architecture in itself is a paradox. It is not practiced for money. If you're so focused about money join the health profession where health insurance companies have an open wallet.

not sure which vision of chicago style you are imagining. i keep thinking reliance building and carson pirie scott and those were pretty cake-looking. lots of frills and lace...but cheap

i dunno, i think if you don't like theory you have to include vitruvius and alberti with sullivan kahn and eisenman or else you are just picking sides. its all just justification after the fact, not the perfect cookbook some people wish it to be...

drawing is a good skill but couldn't care less if my staff are good at it or not. don't care what software they can use either. i want them to be able to think because our job is too complicated to trust such things to just the partners. thinking is what is taught in schools and when i see evidence of that during the day i thank the teachers our staff studied under. good god but how horrible they would be if they only could understand the work we do in terms of bloody 2x4 construction (worse than useless in our office)! Experience is absolutely important, but in the end its about brainpower.

my own portfolio is made up of photos of buildings and a few renderings of unbuilt work here and there. i designed only a few of the projects on my own and most of the renderings are made by people i paid to do the work (ditto the photography, cuz i suck at that), but it's still all my own. mostly i am impressed when a portfolio shows ability to think up and carry out ideas. windows into souls is not necessary, but an

Ii don't run exactly a standard office and my point of view is bound to be skewed because i had an excellent education and solid internship, but it feels like this is a conversation that looks a lot different for the younger people than for the older ones.

I conpletely agree that the whole Chicago School story line as layed out by modernist historians is crap, but I assumed it was part and parcel of the compartimentalized view taught in schools, so though it would resonate with most. I also wondered where the Chicago School to Bauhaus line was drawn, becasue it didn't comport with the buildings you described, among others. Moving on, I do like theory, just not ones that seem so introverted as to never impact the people we are supposed to be designing for. Also, I never trust a theory farther than the buildings they produce, becasue in the end, it's about the buildings. This goes for the religeous right, most republicans, and anyone else that pontificates more than they do, and even then... I guess we'll chalk it up to subjectivity. As for hand drawing, it definatley dosen't mean one can think architecturally. It's about clarity of thought rather than the beauty of the line work. Again though, your characterisation of "bloody 2x4 construction" is unfair. What he's saying is to think about how the building's built, not any one construction detail. And from reading your writting, I think you know that. It would be helpfull if sometimes we'd be allowed to hold two (or more) seemingly contradictory points of view instead of turning every conversation into a zero sum game. Again, if it weren't for some provocateurs here, you'd probably agree.

It sounds like hartacus and Thayer are just defending their humdrum business models. When one can't tackle the conceptual responsibilities of the built environment, they cling to 2x4's and historical copying. My buddy from ITT tech does that too.

Again, there are some really fascinating construction techniques being developed in schools along with the conceptual stuff, but the "profession" is as usual too slow at implementing them. Thank "2x4 worshipping" for it.

I know what a bulb tee is and a heat soak test. I know how to use an ACI calculation to determine the depth of sand-weight concrete cantilever and its dead-load deflection. I know when it's appropriate to use 12"- versus 18"- versus 24"-spaced-on-center on pine-timber construction. I know the basics to ADA compliance in institutional buildings.

Blah. blah. blah.

I was even suppose to get published regarding original research into internally-insulated monolithic concrete construction until it became apparent that I was neither formally educated in architecture or engineering.

In fact, the only architectural classes I've taken have all been history courses. And I'm never taken seriously in this regard because I've never had a formal education from an accredited university. At least in architecture. My Liberal Arts degree might as well be a second high school diploma.

But, I've always wondered if a firm would hire me if I actually had a degree.

The real problem is that most premium architecture schools have devolved into a 3d graphic fuckfest, without any real regard for the profession as it is practiced. She is on the point, but from the wrong end.

sameolddoctor, What do you think schools should teach? My m-arch program put alot of emphasis on building systems, structures, passive heating and cooling, building science, etc....Some studios required details, understanding of materials and construction, etc....I disagree with your statement above. Yes we learned theory and history, but overall I think we spent more time on the technical stuff. Also, a university program is not a vocational school like itt tech. We are taught how to think, and solve problems. The profession does not want problem solvers or thinkers at the entry level, they want workers. many schools lack regard for how the profession is practiced, becase the professors understand that traditional practice will be irrelevant to most students because of the lack of opportunity and the changing trends of the 21st century. They understand that the profession has little love for its young and that we will need to invent our own futures. University education is not set up to produce the next mediocre employee, but rather to produce the next steve jobs, andy warhol, etc....

Also, a professional degree should either have a clear and unabated path toward a license that is 100% in the hands of an individuals own merit (and not hiring trends or geographic location), or it should not be considered a professional degree. IDP should be replaced with something more like a residency that is set up through the school, or the tests should be enough to get a license. A professional degree creates a false sense of security and is the reason why we have so many damn grads that cannot complete their careers.

"Also, a university program is not a vocational school like itt tech. We are taught how to think, and solve problems." So vocational schools don't teach people to think? Could you be more condesending?

"sity education is not set up to produce the next mediocre employee, but rather to produce the next steve jobs, andy warhol, etc...." Exactly. But how many hustler architects can a school produce, one in one thousand? And screw the rest? That's the whole point. Schools as currently run are failing thier mission by your own admission.

"The real problem is that most premium architecture schools have devolved into a 3d graphic fuckfest, without any real regard for the profession as it is practiced" Exactly.

So vocational schools don't teach people to think? Could you be more condesending?

No not in the same way. They may teach technical thinking and problem solving, but they do not teach broad academic thinking. vocational schools are set up to train employee minded people. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not the same as a university. Employers tend to want universities to be more like this, because this would produce good employees that they would not have to invest as much training into.

"sity education is not set up to produce the next mediocre employee, but rather to produce the next steve jobs, andy warhol, etc...." Exactly. But how many hustler architects can a school produce, one in one thousand? And screw the rest? That's the whole point. Schools as currently run are failing thier mission by your own admission.

I don't see it as a failure. I think it is completely fair. This is what we pay for! Do you want physics programs set up for the next einstein or the next dow chemical employee. The university is not there to limit our potential, but rather to encourage greatness in everyone. Of course most people will not live up to this, but thats just how competition works. Anyway, this hatred toward higher education has a very rick santourum feel to it.

I agree with you in spirit, but look at the practice. The next Steve Jobs dosen't need a university degree becasue that's not where the original Steve Jobs came from. Issac Asimoff didn't get an Ivy League degree, nor did the countless great architects of the past who where brought up through the old apprentice system and, on their own, forged their path. To acknowledge this also dosen't equate to hatred of higher education. I have a masters in architecture myself and will encourage my children to persue higher education, but I won't look down my nose if they chose their own path as I wouldn't look down my nose at Steve Jobs.

As a member ot the previous generation, I can tell you unequivocably that the young aren't too impatient, becasue that's the role of the young. To be impatient, to push for the change that the old have become either too tired or cynical to see. But if you think you won't have to pay your dues will only make that payment all the more expensive.

i don't owe dues to thayer-d or anyone else simply because they got old before me. why would i owe them dues? have they done something to earn that, other than just growing old? i really don't feel like i'm entering a profession where older generations are doing anything to help younger generations. in the past, there were systems of a sort in place where younger people can work on drawings in a way that helped teach them how to become a better architect. i'm pretty sure that's gone now.

sorry to put you on the spot thayer-d. i have no idea how old you are. you could be my age. let's just assume that's a generic place-holder for a people that are allegedly owed dues, since you said you're a member of the previous generation.

I'm 45, but nobody owes me anything. I think the dues refered to here are of any artist to their craft. It takes years of practice to get a good hand, unless you where one of the few blessed with one at birth, and even then you need to work to get ahead. The dues are patience and preserverance, not kissing someone's butt. Just don't expect things to be handed to you, and I say that not to be condesending, but to be helpful. If you're not preparing yourself for a lot of adversity in this profession, you'll be in for a rude surprise, unless you where born into high society as many successful architects have been.

curtram, right on dude. This ain't the mafia. Just a empty justification to haze the young into a life of low pay and limited opportunity. It's also a form of informal protectionism to keep competition down.

It's my belief that this 'renaissance' or more accurately, 'exodus' is mostly cultural, more so than technological or due to major shifts in the way we practice architecture. These factors are always (and always have been) evolving. Albeit this job market represents unusual adversity for the young architect, hierarchies persist, and we are still an industry of professionals providing a service.

Due to the fact that so many young architects are sidelined from actual architectural practice by this recession, perhaps too much importance is put on credentials. For me, getting an advanced degree or even getting a license is not the culmination of your architectural education, but merely a component among many components towards your distinction as a professional.

I have always held that your IDP hours are the most critical component of your architectural education because A. you choose for yourself what level of quality design experience you get and B. you see how the sausage is made and are forced to do things that are not always glamorous, but essential e.g. drawing stair sections. I think these are fundamental skills that every good architect builds from...and these things take time (longer than the length of a recession).

Perhaps I'm a little old school, but my architectural heroes seem to come from the same story: